New code review: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~jeanm/slim_sparc2/
The bits appear to work but I'm retesting again just to be sure. Jean Jean McCormack wrote: > Karen Tung wrote: > >> Jean McCormack wrote: >> >>> Dave Miner wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Jean McCormack wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Karen and anyone else please review: >>>>> >>>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~jeanm/slim_sparc/ >>>>> >>>>> I believe the appropriate defect is: >>>>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=4230 >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I'll need to commit with this for the comments. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> DC_defs.py: >>>> Is there a reason to not just switch to a generic name for the boot >>>> archive? We're not going to build multiple ISA's into the same >>>> image, so an ISA-specific name seems unnecessary to retain. >>>> >>>> >>> Is just plain old microroot OK? I thought we needed to keep the ISA >>> specific name, thus >>> the change. >>> >>> Jean >>> >>> >>> >> While I agree with Dave that we should use a generic name, I think it is >> better to do it as a separate bug after the SPARC changes are putback. >> I did a quick search on the slim_source tree, and found that >> x86.microroot is hard coded in many different places >> including the libict, installadm as well as different places in DC. >> Since we want to test all affected components throughly, it would >> greatly delay on when we putback the SPARC changes. >> >> Thanks, >> >> --Karen >> > Funny. I just was doing this and found the same. So, I'll push what my > changes show and > open a bug to change the microroot name. > > Jean > > > _______________________________________________ > caiman-discuss mailing list > caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >
